swrb.com wrote:
the lasting fruit of the greatest revival since the days of the apostles: the Covenanted Reformation!

"Christ and our Solemn Covenant with God call us to "one reformed religion" in our lands."

Please list the jurisdictions where "the purity of doctrine, life, worship, church government, and civil government to which they attained" can be found today.

Neil wrote:
I hope Fiat at least has their quality act together now, for Chrysler hasn't for years.

Mike wrote:
Your point?

Surely apologising for arrogance is in full accord with all that is BEST (that is the biblical influence) in American values and traditions.

Unless perhaps American values and traditions today revolve around a core doctrine of arrogance?

Henry,

The purpose of my post was to highlight the false dichotomy implied in the article between American values and apologising for arrogance.

With the exception of Jesus Christ, please show me any man or nation that has not been arrogant.

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Mike wrote:
A good trick if you can do it, keeping personalities out of a debate about the activities of said personalities.

Mike wrote:
I'm happy you weren't personalizing the issue.
I don't have any problem with the president apologizing for arrogance. Even to the French. It does seem somewhat hypocritical, in that it is a bit arrogant for him to presume he speaks for me. How's that for personalizing?

Mike wrote:
Even when the most arrogant American is doing the apologizing?

I wasn't peronalising the issue.

Surely apologising for arrogance is in full accord with all that is BEST (that is the biblical influence) in American values and traditions.

Lance Eccles wrote:
Answer to the second: Yes.
Those absolute standards allow the state to punish those who threaten social order, and in a state in which virtually everyone is of the same religion, "heretics" threaten social order.

Lance Eccles wrote:
St Thomas Aquinas' remarks are perfectly reasonable in the context of their place and time, though they would not be appropriate in today's situation.
I am very pleased that your prayers are with me, and I thank you for that.

The inseperable intertwining of religion and government comes from the Roman and Mohammedan Antichrists.

Be careful what you wish for.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
This I think one reason that Christianity has done much better in the U.S.A. than Great Britain, but whatever has happened has been God's will.

Where two or three of the "ignorant" "unbelievers", raised in a "different" and "contrary" belief system, are gathered together in Jesus' name, is "your" Jesus there with them?
And biblically, since it is impossible for two people to know each other when they are ignorant of each other, then surely they are doomed to hell for one will assuredly say "I never knew you" and "depart from me" to your RCC amnesty "unbelievers".

Your softer, kinder, Catholicism still ties itself in knots and unravels very quickly.

As for me, by God's grace, I trust that I am in your latter group. I reject Rome in its official Antichrist teachings and stand fully with Christ's "different" and "contrary" gospel found in the scriptures.

As for you, please quote original Magisterial sources, as they alone can expound and determine this teaching, not you.

GG wrote:
Who am I, a member of the RCC, to tell you, a Protestant, about the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Heck, if you don't something...you will probably just make it up as you go along!

GG wrote:
"Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I AM IN THE MIDST OF THEM"....even in Catholic Churches Jim...or is Jesus wrong about this?

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus!

Mike wrote:
Yup. Don't know about there, but the Depression here didn't end until into WW2. A long time after 1933. Don't worry, though, FDR was an early version of BHO. He could do no wrong either, even while doing it.

I am sure that many years from now, whatever happens in the next few months and years and whatever right or wrong he does, we will hear many on the Conservative Right telling us that Barack Obama's presidency helped start this recession and caused it to reach it's current global impact.

Mike wrote:
The Great Depression was helped to become great by the great FD Roosevelt.

And you wish to blame a guy who didn't take office until 1933 for helping the depression to "become" "Great"?

Back to the topic, personally, I think the roots of this economic catastrophe started with the Reagan/Thatcher obsession with a "property owning" democracy. As if there is anything ignoble about being a tenant?

My comment in context was in response to a suggestion of a "rapid decay" of Empire.

I toyed with adding a reference to 1776 myself but ran out of space. Obviously, I agree that all kingdoms rise and fall (yes, even those around today), and that there is a "long view" to history. I would throw in a few thoughts about the opium trade as well if I was to critique the British Empire.

Robert wrote:
I certainly don't know with certainty that the US will go through Weimar-esque hyperinflation, but I do know from scripture that the world will during the tribulation.

Robert wrote:
It's not a perfect comparison, of course, but the last time socialist ideas were so ascendant was around that period, and it is interesting that there was widespread economic trouble then, too.

Robert wrote:
the rapid decay of Great Britain's empire after WW1 for another.